>Maybe rather than going on about how open-minded you are because you
>are willing to accept that the Face may be artificial, you can simply
>say how likely you think it is to be artificial. Other list members
>may then wish to chime in with their own quantitative estimates, and
>you can have a more meaningful discussion.
This was never about being "open-minded," but I'll address your challenge.
Simply, _we need more data_. Some of the formations are quite compelling. But I must ground this in the stark fact that Mars is a different planet (Earthlike, yes, but possessed of a different geology). Let's take one feature: the Crater Pyramid (one of the least known anomalies, probably because it lacks the "romance" of the Face). I'm 100% certain it was formed after the adjacent meteor impact (that physical law and common sense say should have flattened it utterly). So how did it get there?
I know if I propose artificiality, I'll be bombarded with posts lambasting the prospect of interstellar travel, so I really don't know what to say. I suppose that for this particular feature I'd be willing to go 50/50 between geology and artificiality. If I'm proved wrong--great! I will have learned something (along with a great many Martian gelogists).
--Mac Tonnies